Please note that due to the amount of spam posts we have been receiving over the past few months, we have switched Registration to require you to be approved by a moderator. We will go through the approval list as often as we can, but if it's been 24 hours and you haven't been Approved yet or you've received a rejection email, please email myself or one of the moderators immediately so we may correct the application.

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.

Here is a polarizing topic to enjoy. Many advocate veganism for example as a way of life for conducting minimum damage, but is it really correct or some kind of feel-good moral high ground stance? On the other side of the fence you see those that follow the hunt to eat protocol and deeply feel themselves as part of nature and respecting the animals.

I saw a documentary on Wakanui beef farmers. The farmer they focused on really professed to love his cows and in turn they seemed to live a relatively happy and stress free life.

The farmer, the cows, the land, the people that eat them all form symbiosis. Some say symbiosis is one of the highest vibration configurations for life. It makes me wonder what would happen to that land if we no longer ran cattle. It is ironic to think that veganism protects animals, but also obsoletes their purpose from a symbiosis standpoint. We wouldn't commit much land to cows just treat them like pets, so not eating cows will wipe out their population?

Tom Campbell uses the example that one cow in the wild has a better experience than one hundred cows on the farm, but is that really the case? Most animals that live in the wild suffer excruciating death at the hands of predators. We believe that pets undergo spiritual growth by the virtue of being around humans, can the same be said of free range livestock?

Then I look at a coffee plantation where the human and environmental cost of production is obscene - yet it is considered ethically vegan.

The question of how to live while doing the least harm is a really difficult problem to solve. No matter which direction you turn someone or something is getting plundered and abused on this planet...

How do you settle the ethical debate in your own minds? Keep it civil...lol.

Answer:Not necessarily. The Buddha was not a vegetarian. He did not teach his disciples to be vegetarians and even today, there are many good Buddhists who are not vegetarians.

Question:But if you eat meat you are indirectly responsible for the death of a creature. Isn't that breaking the first precept?

Answer:It is true that when you eat meat, you are indirectly and partially responsible for killing a creature but the same is true when you eat vegetables. The farmer has to spray his crop with insecticides and poisons so that the vegetables arrive on your dinner plates without holes in them. And once again, animals have been killed to provide the leather for your belt or handbag, oil for the soap you use and a thousand other products as well. It is impossible to live without, in some way, being indirectly responsible for the death of some other beings, and this is just another example of the First Noble Truth, ordinary existence is suffering and unsatisfactory. When you take the First Precept, you try to avoid being directly responsible for killing beings.

Question:Mahayana Buddhists don't eat meat.

Answer:That is not correct. Mahayana Buddhism in China laid great stress on being vegetarian but both the monks and laymen/laywomen of the Mahayana tradition in Japan and Tibet usually eat meat.

Question:But I still think that a Buddhist should be vegetarian.

Answer:If there was a person who was a very strict vegetarian but who was selfish, dishonest and mean, and another person who was not a vegetarian but who was thoughtful to others, honest, generous and kind, which of these two would be the better Buddhist?

Question:The person who was honest and kind.

Answer:Why?

Question:Because such a person obviously has a good heart.

Answer:Exactly. One who eats meat can have a pure heart just as one who does not eat meat can have an impure heart. In the Buddha's teachings, the important thing is the quality of your heart, not the contents of your diet. Many Buddhists take great care never to eat meat but they are not concerned about being selfish, dishonest, cruel or jealous. They change their diet which is easy to do, while neglecting to change their hearts which is a difficult thing to do. So whether you are a vegetarian or not, remember that the purification of the mind is the most important thing in Buddhism.

Logged

---“Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider.”- Sir Francis Bacon

Damn that infernal human biology, seems we are designed to eat but we are damned if we do and damned (dead) if we don't.

But you're right Thaomas, if we look closely enough we can find a reason to not do things one way or the other. I chalk this whole vegan vs meat argument up to a few people with publishers and dang little else to do looking for something/anything controversial to talk about.

I say if you are in the mood for a steak then eat steak, same goes for a salad. And anyone who thinks it's easy to grow either needs to get out there and do it. Having said all that I do think everyone should at least try to be conservative in their consumption and try to at least give thanks for whatever they consume.

Logged

You may never have proof of your importance but you are more important than you think. There are always those who couldn’t do without you. The rub is that you don’t always know who- Robert Fulgham

Answer:Exactly. One who eats meat can have a pure heart just as one who does not eat meat can have an impure heart. In the Buddha's teachings, the important thing is the quality of your heart, not the contents of your diet. Many Buddhists take great care never to eat meat but they are not concerned about being selfish, dishonest, cruel or jealous. They change their diet which is easy to do, while neglecting to change their hearts which is a difficult thing to do. So whether you are a vegetarian or not, remember that the purification of the mind is the most important thing in Buddhism.

So going by the Buddhist teachings we can clearly see elucidated in the eight-fold path, around half of them are expressly about eliminating harm we do to other people and beings. Namely, the eightfold path states that we should have proper intentions, that our jobs should not do harm, and that we should not do harm by speech, or by direct action.

So from this, we can tell that a Buddhist following those teachings would not be indifferent to the question of what diet did the least harm.

Now it is not entirely clear what diet does the least harm of all, but clearly some choices are better than others.

I am certain Buddhist teachings would approve of hunting to a much greater degree than factory farming for instance, because a hunter by direct experience has respect for what they take, and only harms the animal once in its lifetime, rather than for an entire lifetime.

I am certain Buddhist teachings would tell us Veal or Kobe beef and the like are shameful, because they involve clearly unnecessary torture.

The question then turns to whether a vegan, vegetarian, or a diet with a few animal products causes the least harm in general. I don't think we can really take insects into the equation, as I think they have fairly low levels of awareness (so that is one of my starting points).

I would define harm as starting with a larger invertebrate like a crab or lobster, that clearly has a developed nervous system and feels pain. It would clearly extend to harming birds or rodents as well. So namely harm starts with creatures with a capacity for experiencing it.

I would argue that the diet that is concerned with minimizing harm then should be focused on products which in no part of their production harm other beings.

There was a study recently done that got a lot of press, which stated that the harvesting of grains and other vegetables caused thousands of rodent deaths due to the harvesting machinery. This study was later revealed to have been funded by beef and egg producers, lol, and similar studies were later done that determined that rodents actually flee from the site of a harvest due to the noise. So there is large amounts of disinformation by advocates of various diets to wade through.

A similar argument can of course be levied against farmed meats... if rodents or pests are harmed in the production of grains, then meat production harms a profound number of these rodents through the amount of grain it is necessary to feed a farmed animal.

A Buddhist-centric society would be concerned with ensuring that its harvesting systems involved the least harm, but unfortunately we are all fed by systems that are designed around efficiency and production yields instead. Despite this fact, I would argue that the diet that does the least harm contains primarily vegetable products. If your diet must contain meat, it is better to hunt that meat than to farm it. But the population is also well beyond what hunted meat could support, so this would imply to me it is better not to eat meat at all, as a rule for all people.

That begins a discussion about nutrition, but that is another discussion, since this is a discussion about harm.

Good replies. I like the Buddhist views on this topic. This is definitely a matter where people are acting as merchants of doubt to keep us paralyzed in confusion on what the least harm really is.

Speaking directly to Stillwater's latest reply I would make an advance on the definition of harm. I don't see killing a crab as being less harm than eating a mushroom just because the crab can feel pain. I think one has to judge harm based on the potential of the entire system to profit.

Mass agriculture is pretty destructive, as is the mass raising of livestock. When you are using agriculture to feed the livestock the problem really is compounded. In my home country of New Zealand we don't raise livestock on crops, there is still enough land left for them to eat grass luckily.

Maybe minimizing harm isn't the end of the argument though. Shouldn't it really be about maximizing spiritual profit while doing the least harm? There may be a point of inflection where one can say that it is necessary to cause a small amount of harm in order to yield a large amount of benefits for everything. Every decision is an active decision.

Maybe minimizing harm isn't the end of the argument though. Shouldn't it really be about maximizing spiritual profit while doing the least harm? There may be a point of inflection where one can say that it is necessary to cause a small amount of harm in order to yield a large amount of benefits for everything. Every decision is an active decision.

Well for me, I have no definition for spiritual profit. I cannot even say if it is a real thing or not, since it depends on all sorts of metaphysical assumptions I don't think it is safe to assume.

On the other hand, I think even a child can understand harm. They know what things are unpleasant to them, and they reason that other creatures shouldn't have those same unpleasant things visited on them. Children respect the feelings and safety of their family pets. It is self-evident to them that harm is a tangible thing.

But let's for a moment entertain the idea that spiritual profit may exist:

It really starts to lead to a dark place to me... because we start reasoning, "how much suffering is it ok to cause, if the result is positive for my growth?"

There is a sort of parasitic / vampiristic quality to that sort of reasoning to me. I am very uncomfortable with the notion that it is ok to harm others against their will if we determine it is for our own greater good.

Well for me, I have no definition for spiritual profit. I cannot even say if it is a real thing or not, since it depends on all sorts of metaphysical assumptions I don't think it is safe to assume.

True, what is really fundamental in the cosmic scale might be unknowable. I try to use a scale of extremes to imagine spiritual profit, suppose that living on earth is the game and that game supports two states: being alive, playing the game; being dead, game over. By these standards winning the game is maximizing the units and the quality of the experience of each unit. Losing the game is some unsustainable arrangement that gravitates towards all the units dying.

Quote

On the other hand, I think even a child can understand harm. They know what things are unpleasant to them, and they reason that other creatures shouldn't have those same unpleasant things visited on them. Children respect the feelings and safety of their family pets. It is self-evident to them that harm is a tangible thing.

But let's for a moment entertain the idea that spiritual profit may exist:

It really starts to lead to a dark place to me... because we start reasoning, "how much suffering is it ok to cause, if the result is positive for my growth?"

There is a sort of parasitic / vampiristic quality to that sort of reasoning to me. I am very uncomfortable with the notion that it is ok to harm others against their will if we determine it is for our own greater good.

Vampirism is a pretty interesting concept. How can you be uncomfortable with these ideas though? I feel like harming others for our greater good is what we do every single day, you can barely take a breath without doing it.

If you look at harm without the tradeoff of the benefits gained you are paralyzed in this reality and others. If the larger consciousness system generates a fresh unit, knowing we are likely to suffer in this reality, it is doing harm. But it does it anyway because in the long run there is a tradeoff for growth and it needs this process to live. If the answer to how much harm can we cause to grow is zero, aren't we dead in the water?

If the answer to how much harm can we cause to grow is zero, aren't we dead in the water?

Exactly. Lots of ethical systems logically end with the assertion that the very best and most ethical thing is to off oneself. I ran into that one early as a kid, and to be honest, I still haven't fully refuted it. It is one of the great beasts of ethics out there.

Quote

I feel like harming others for our greater good is what we do every single day, you can barely take a breath without doing it.

Yeah, if you take this world as a closed system, with no metaphysical context, it seems to be mainly about domination. The powerful dominate the weak. Again, if you take this world as a closed system, the thing all beings should strive for is the power necessary in order to avoid being dominated. It is very much in line with Nietzsche's view of the world, and the expression of the "great will to power".

Quote

I try to use a scale of extremes to imagine spiritual profit, suppose that living on earth is the game and that game supports two states: being alive, playing the game; being dead, game over. By these standards winning the game is maximizing the units and the quality of the experience of each unit. Losing the game is some unsustainable arrangement that gravitates towards all the units dying.

Yeah, it is perfectly reasonable to speak in the hypothetical, so while I can't safely say "spiritual profit" exists, I am very comfortable with testing it as a starting point and seeing where the reasoning leads.

So in this common concept of ethics, we are trying for a system that results in the maximal well-being for the widest possible number of entities. The tricky thing, is it is still in the context of the domination and power struggle I mentioned earlier. It starts because some group feels like they know what is in the greater good. In order to realize this goal, they have to dominate reality around them in order to impose it. This is effectively what all political power is... asking for the right to the sole exercising of force over a given domain, in order to enact a given goal of their choosing, but we know that old Lord Acton dictum, that, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". There is the biological thing that happens, where the more power a person has, the less empathy their brain will produce. It is some evolutionary mechanism we have, where we only seem to value the wellbeing of others as long as we aren't winning. When we switch to winning, we switch to a strategy that maximizes our influence, and thus our number and quality of our mates, and / or the resources for our children is maximized.

So in this common concept of ethics, we are trying for a system that results in the maximal well-being for the widest possible number of entities. The tricky thing, is it is still in the context of the domination and power struggle I mentioned earlier. It starts because some group feels like they know what is in the greater good. In order to realize this goal, they have to dominate reality around them in order to impose it.

Yes, this does seem true. There is a name for the break point at which a unit becomes self aware at a level that they can go from some kind of reactive and semi-autonomous mentality to actively taking up the quest and responsibility of altering their behavior. I think it was named something like the third order of consciousness.

Once you take an active step to meddle with the environment around you, you are eternally responsible for the repercussions. Taking control on some level is mandatory to make a change. I see this pattern repeating at levels beyond our reality, the existence of this system and our participation in it is a domination of higher order reality.

Quote

This is effectively what all political power is... asking for the right to the sole exercising of force over a given domain, in order to enact a given goal of their choosing, but we know that old Lord Acton dictum, that, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". There is the biological thing that happens, where the more power a person has, the less empathy their brain will produce. It is some evolutionary mechanism we have, where we only seem to value the wellbeing of others as long as we aren't winning. When we switch to winning, we switch to a strategy that maximizes our influence, and thus our number and quality of our mates, and / or the resources for our children is maximized.

If the power corrupts idea is really correct wouldn't that mean that the idea of God is absolute corruption? I suspect that the power corrupts observation may only hold true in the short term because those that become corrupt with power would tend towards self destruction. The evolutionary mechanism is a pretty amazing factoid. That strategy for survival has to have worked pretty well for us in the past but it is likely also short term. If humans continued to evolve for millions more years natural selection might create a default where we do value the wellbeing of others even when we have power, since that could be the best strategy for our current and future scenarios.

Where does that leave us? Maybe the escape route is to find a way to have positive influence without exerting power. Kind of seems conceptually impossible though, almost by definition the ability to make change, directly or indirectly, is power.

Giving respect and recognition for the lives given to our support is all that is required. That's what every religion teaches..for good reason.

It seems in this consciousness there is only respect for more perceived intelligence of the human kind. Any other is denigrated, discounted and made non existent.

We haven't moved an inch forward from the modern colonial era when blacks were thought of as sub humans! Well anyway we can go back to every civilisation that dishonoured others as being sub-standard. Nothing has changed at all.

Same things different scapegoat.

We have such a variety of intelligent life right here, right now, that it's off the charts...but we seek to recognise only our intelligence and preferably higher than that but only from outer space. Nothing else.

And we are so poor in real sight, we fail to recognising and appreciate the gift we are given by so many beings who organise themselves with purpose to support our learning and experience! They are too small for these mighty brains of ours.

There is no thought that isn't noted, no action missed...all is known. So just give thanks! Give thanks to every atom we transmute every day in every breath...and every cell we support in our bodies.....every cell we accept as food ..since really it's all energy ..all transmuted...no destruction...just lessons in awareness.

Giving respect and recognition for the lives given to our support is all that is required. ...

Does all that include those who voted against your political views? I doubt it.

If there were an intelligent design, all this is what it is supposed to be. Why would a super intelligent and all powerful entity design something poorly then let it chaotically evolve? There are some blatant contradictions there.

Logged

---“Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider.”- Sir Francis Bacon

Do what you can with the opportunities that are given to you. If you try to force a situation then you are just creating an imbalance. For instance, I prefer not to eat meat or any life that does not naturally fall to the ground. However, considering the System I am integrated into, like most all other people, there are situations where I feel I must eat what I do not desire to eat out of respect for those that are around me at the time we are eating. At the same time I do not feel guilt or regret.

Another example: I do not avoid driving my car because I know I will kill thousands of insects on the interstate traveling at 75 MPH. But at the same time whenever I see a spider, a roach, or an ant in my house I do not kill it. I will pick them up and set them outside.

Also, I view ALL life as equal. Given that all life IS equal and none is lesser or greater than another then that would mean I would see nothing right or wrong with eating other Humans if the situation called for it. Personally I would prefer not to eat another Human for the same reason I prefer not to eat animals.

Bari-San...why would I not enjoy differences, opposition...variety? Why would I be insecure to want monotony? Why would I want a consciousness that's so exclusive as to limit its existence to a handful of possibilities? Would that not say confidence in members is limited so choice must pre-exist to secure them?

This gestalt we are in is all inclusive...including chaos.....and we are endowed with all possible options. All and everything is at our disposal. We are all powerful...we are one with all.

There are no mistakes, no up, no down....no right, wrong or evil. It's all expression of the One. All expression of what's is impressed. For the fun of expression.

The reality here in this earth....at this time...challenges one to live with awareness. To know the past, that what has gone (be it that we can't even prove it in fact did happen!) and awarely choose a future. Never have we had so much possibility.....so much time to think and consider...so much luxury of spare time to learn and mature in thought and act. Be aware of how energy is used to manipulate....hide.... influence those not living awarely. Public opinion is swayed with emotions and popular thought. It's going to get a lot lot more 'interesting' so the faster one ties themselves to a good reference point they can trust to help them navigate coming emotional onslaught and switches on self guidance...the better. Be part of humanity...but live with awareness. Fit in...but see through the smoke and mirrors.

Enjoy your time here. It's a time like no other.

I have an idea...could be my imaginings...but this time was to be so filled with energy that billions more humans and life forms was going to be needed to be here to help transmute it. That energy may set off some who cannot manage it and they may go off their rockers in some number. That means all possible expressions can be anticipated. It means awareness is needed to balance the lemmings controlled by high energy hitting their lower brain expressing their lower natures....causing survival instincts.

You who are awake and can consider wider picture, have a better chance of not being lost to popular thought .....so may avoid influence.....can avoid crowd emotion and control......live awarely.

It doesn't mean you and I won't still go nuts ourselves.....just that we should find our footing faster.....

Feed your body what it needs...all nutrients....depression...loss of sleep....all manner of illness....follows from lack of what it needs to run efficiently. You are responsible for providing nutrients. There is no excuse these days for starving it by following some PC ideal.

Here's how I see things about this...The problem here is that we have a huge society... Millions of people in big cities, Hundreds of millions in big countries.Even if 10-15% even 20% of the population would turn vegetarian or vegan, that would only partially change the production of meat.There's too many people who have meat in their diet, even if I stopped eating meat there would still be fresh meat selling.They'll still kill animals for their meat for the potential customer.Basically we're doing harm to animals just because we're overpopulated.It's a problem, but there is alternatives that are going to come over the next few years.Insect farms which turns them into protein, and also the laboratory grown meat that has been recently developed.

To me, even if I go vegetarian it wont change the fact that there will still be animal harm until we completely stop eating flesh that came from conscious animals.So I just eat meat anyway until that there's an affordable alternative.

I don't feel like I've caused any harms to a specific animal or feel any guilt about it because otherwise everyone in the society including vegetarians and vegans should feel guilty about it, simply because of the overpopulation factor and the fact that we can't stop animal harm unless we all stop eating meat and we start using an alternate food source for survival.

Simply put... You can go vegan or vegetarian but it wont change anything.You might feel better physically and/or spiritually, but it wont be because you're not guilty of animal killings anymore.It will be because you eat healthy food.

There's no guilt in eating meat if it was already killed and prepared because of the overpopulation factor in my opinion.We'll get there eventually, in the meantime, we just have to carry on.Now if farms stops killing animals eventually and we're only sustaining with the above laboratories and other alternative which don't do any harm then I suppose there will be a spiritual advancement.It would be a huge jump for a spiritually healthy society I think.

See, I think food habits is on a social level. Even if you stop doing what others do, you're still stuck in that society...

Maybe I'm wrong tho...

Logged

The partial becomes complete; the crooked, straight; the empty,full; the worn out, new. He whose (desires) are few gets them; hewhose (desires) are many goes astray.

I suspect Kzaal's thoughts are typical of the majority of the population. The mentality that 'even if I stop eating meat, it won't stop the killing of animals, so I may as well continue eating it'. To me, that is a complete yellow-bellied, pathetic cop-out of an excuse.

Quote from: Kzaal

Even if 10-15% even 20% of the population would turn vegetarian or vegan, that would only partially change the production of meat.

Is your priority about the production of meat? What about the living, breathing animals that won't have to die? Don't they have a voice?

Quote from: Kzaal

So I just eat meat anyway until that there's an affordable alternative.

There already IS an affordable alternative.

Quote from: Kzaal

Simply put... You can go vegan or vegetarian but it wont change anything.

Of course it will. If more and more people stop eating meat, then eventually the killing of animals will reduce. Climbing a mountain takes time and millions of small steps, not one giant jump.

What's all this baloney about 'spiritual advancement' - what about our fellow earth-dwellers, the animals themselves? It isn't all about us.

Honestly, I sometimes think people are still living in the dark ages. Animals are not second-class.

And if you counter-argue that plants have feelings too, well at least let's start somewhere with animals who we can hear and see their pain/terror when they are being killed.

Good lord, it's not rocket science.

And all this from a meat eater. A part-time meat eater, but a meat eater nonetheless.

Widening topic just an appropriate tad....this reality has now become one where we even consume each other in our desperation and fight to live to maximum.

By that I mean what has now sadly become a major donor market for organs.

People are killed...people go missing....people sell their organs...people are robbed of their organs.

And for a small group now popping up, here and there....people are killed to be eaten.

I am not a donor...not recipient. Nor will anything convince me otherwise. I have grown up as a quasi vegetarian owing to financial constraints so naturally am decidedly more veg than not by habit.....but I do eat some meat by conversion have grown to accept it...though more and more am disgusted at the taste because of major chemical (chlorine) baths to rid it of decaying odours to continue selling it in supermarkets.

If humanity wants to alter its genetic roots..... we can't ever rid ourselves of our reptilian brain!.... then it's a matter of sufficient % of population...critical mass....wishing to. Then it's done automatically as if a miracle wand has waved it so.

Mind you with supermakets continuing their chlorine baths....it's doing a darn good job to disgust us off it!! Critical mass should be achieved by sheer revulsion at what they sell? If you have taste buds.....

Here in UK there is an expected 'sudden dementia' of millions. That's a hereditary end of BST of cows that were consumed here and everywhere they were exported...because the government knowingly hushed up the contamination to save the industry and therefore nearly everyone here living then, ate it....so some 25 odd mil people...thirty years later....we are coming up to expected epidemic starting. When you hear of someone under 60 with sudden and drastic progression of dementia...it's BST.

Between genetic mutation of veg and fruit (who knows what it now is?) and chlorine meat....Franly its beyond ethics....i just don't know if I want to eat anything! My senses and stomach just can't cope. Nothing to do with ethics.....

I suspect Kzaal's thoughts are typical of the majority of the population. The mentality that 'even if I stop eating meat, it won't stop the killing of animals, so I may as well continue eating it'. To me, that is a complete yellow-bellied, pathetic cop-out of an excuse.

Is your priority about the production of meat? What about the living, breathing animals that won't have to die? Don't they have a voice?

There already IS an affordable alternative.

Of course it will. If more and more people stop eating meat, then eventually the killing of animals will reduce. Climbing a mountain takes time and millions of small steps, not one giant jump.

What's all this baloney about 'spiritual advancement' - what about our fellow earth-dwellers, the animals themselves? It isn't all about us.

Honestly, I sometimes think people are still living in the dark ages. Animals are not second-class.

And if you counter-argue that plants have feelings too, well at least let's start somewhere with animals who we can hear and see their pain/terror when they are being killed.

Good lord, it's not rocket science.

And all this from a meat eater. A part-time meat eater, but a meat eater nonetheless.

Except you're never gonna change 7 billion people habits like that.Even more so by saying their excuses is pathetic.This is not how you do things if you want change.Animals like cow don't have voice, they don't, not in our society. Normal people don't have cows as their domestic animal. They are considered livestock.They have feelings yes of course but they can't express what they want. And sadly they're at the bottom of our food chain.I'm not for the killing of animals for our survival but this is what we do, it's in our nature.It's not gonna change in one day like you said.You can't change 7 billion people, that's impossible, even when we'll face extinction and we'll be out of meat we'll still try to find a way to eat some.

People don't want to be told they're pathetic when eating meat in their family is how they were raised.Same goes for smoking, I've been smoking for 13 years, do you think I want to quit because I think it tastes bad? Hell no, I enjoy the taste of it. I want to quit because I know it's not healthy.I honestly was interested in going vegetarian not for spiritual reasons but for eating healthy.But meat feels good, and I don't feel guilty because there's no way around that taste. There's no identical bacon tasting food that isn't meat and that isn't full of chemicals.I'm sorry but I've been raised in a family of hunters, although it's sad to know how the meat got in your plate it's something you gotta get over with and stop thinking about it.

And until they figure out a way to mass produce meat without hurting any animal, or make some insects protein bars with good flavor available to everyone for cheap then I'm gonna keep eating bacon, it's as simple as that.It's not spiritual, unless everyone does it.And people who think that they're changing things by going vegetarian in an omnivore society is not realistic, the meat will stay on the shelf until it turns bad. Then they'll throw it in the garbage and the animal will have been killed for nothing anyway.Wasting resources is almost as bad as consuming it. For me, I'd rather have it in my belly than seeing it rotting and wasted, at least it will have lived to it's purpose.

And most people think like that, honestly, almost everyone who isn't vegetarian or vegan will tell you the same thing I did.Is it bad because I think like that? Not really because that's how I we're raised... Is it morally wrong that as a society we do this? I'd rather not think about it because I know I can't change society with my opinions.

Some things you just can't change like that. You just gotta get over it.

Edit: Animals don't have a spiritual advancement process like we do, they can't communicate their exact thoughts to other beings like we do, they don't have that spiritual advancement need as we do. Only humans do that. For animals it's as simple as did I have a good life? Was I a good dog? Yes? Then off to the next stage of reincarnation. Same goes for cows and all other animals.

Humans are the only one which brings ethical thinking and moral values into these variables which makes it much harder to advance spiritually.It all depends on the person's perspective honestly.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:07:00 by Kzaal »

Logged

The partial becomes complete; the crooked, straight; the empty,full; the worn out, new. He whose (desires) are few gets them; hewhose (desires) are many goes astray.

I suspect Kzaal's thoughts are typical of the majority of the population. The mentality that 'even if I stop eating meat, it won't stop the killing of animals, so I may as well continue eating it'. To me, that is a complete yellow-bellied, pathetic cop-out of an excuse.

I know you have stepped out of the thread for now, but I will reply anyway because I enjoy it. This point is an intriguing one, on one hand you vote with your wallet when it comes to the production of meat, on the other hand it does make little difference to be among the first to go against the flow. Maybe being the first to make a fraction of a difference is a necessary step in the starting the avalanche.

When it comes down to it though, the quoted phrase might be a pretty good excuse for other reasons. If any of us stop eating meat it really won't stop the killing of animals because of the costs of agriculture. What I am talking about is that you cant (I know vegans who still do though) say you are going to stop eating meat in order to save the animals and then turn around and use fossil fuel transport or genetically engineered cancer food. To be truly committed to the welfare of animals feels like an all or nothing prospect and that is why it is paralyzing for the majority of the population.

I have lived on an organic orchard and we did raise cows, chicken, ducks, turkey, geese. Those cows had good lives in my view. When I compare the impact of eating them to the impact of mass vegetable production at the farm next door I am left wondering what is really ethical?

One thing I can say is that factory farmed meat is a pretty bad deal. Free farmed meat might be more ethical than vegetable farming or other consumables/technology though.

Quote

Animals are not second-class.

And if you counter-argue that plants have feelings too, well at least let's start somewhere with animals who we can hear and see their pain/terror when they are being killed.

This is a little bit of a contradiction because if animals aren't second class then plants cant be second class either. Is it valid to say that plants and animals and humans are all on the same class but we will prioritize those beings that experience pain? That's just making non-pain experiencing beings second class. I am weary of the trap of prioritizing beings that have a similar experience to ours that we can relate to. If we could experience what it is like to be a plant we may find that their version of pain and terror is just as valid as ours.

When beings start killing each other we regard them in a hierarchy and pick which one we want to terminate. If wild animals were ravaging the eco-system to the point of collapse we would start valuing the plants more than the pain and terror of destroying the animal causing the pestilence. Some credence has to be given to what the being contributes to the system versus the harm in terminating that being.

You need to eat animals and plants too, they are both conscious beings like you. Everything is alive and have a deep core from the NP.

These idiotish belief systems are pain in the butt these years that don't do this or that, follow this or that... be a puppet of a cunstruct instead of eating what feels ok and keeping your body in balance, keeping your muscles enough strong to handle your daily life?

We need to eat animals... it is an excuse to not kill them and eat other excrement, right? Everybody dies, animals too, soo??? Those are already dead bodies! You are not consuming their souls comeon! This is just a game, the physical life. The stronger stays in action, the weaker goes to another task. The cycle of life.

Now just look closely, the "whole food industry" came in since a while, now people are mass-killing plants lol. Is it better? Because these ridiculous beliefs are mainstream now and people believe in them, you deny certain elements from your body, instead having defficiency symptoms years later.

They aren't black and white at all, and the views here were so polarizing as predicted, but I am glad I started this thread. Lots of information to absorb and it prompted more research into Buddhist philosophies that I need in my life right now.

I think I will continue to eat meat, but I feel privileged that most animals in New Zealand are free farmed and get a decent go at life. Factory farming is where it starts to cross the line in my mind of being potentially more harmful than driving a car for instance.